Thursday, September 08, 2016

John Scalzi ‏@scalziOh and apparently, yesterday, according to leading racists, I called for the genocide of white folks! Sorry, whites. We had a good run.

John Scalzi ‏@scalziLOOK PEOPLE I JUST FOUND OUT I CALLED FOR WHITE GENOCIDE I DIDN'T KNOW I WOULD HAVE TO PLAN THE WHOLE THING TOOJohn Scalzi ‏@scalzi I mean, this is my schedule today:7am-9: Novel writing10am: Post big idea12pm: Phone meeting1pm: WHITE GENOCIDE2pm: NapIt's packed!

But this was definitely my favorite.

John Scalzi ‏@scalziJust read a hilarious thread on Facebook, of people slagging an imaginary version of me. I "liked" the original post, of course.

Of course. See, when you "like" people insulting you, and when you pretend to laugh at their contempt, that totally negates it. SECRET KING WINS AGAIN! If you want to know why it's so easy to predict the behavior of SJWs like McRapey, read SJWAL.

Someone made a few alterations. I tweeted it to #BlackLivesMatter. This promises to be amusing.

UPDATE: In a comment on his own post which consists of a series of tweets concerning his humorous approach to genocide, John Scalzi would like to set a few things straight.

Since inevitably some poor humorless racist schmuck still won’t understand:

1. Hey! I’m not for genocide of any sort!

2. As such, no argument for genocide, “white” or otherwise, is an acceptable one.

3. If one were to make an argument for the genocide of white people, pointing at the existence of horrible white racist schmucks and all the horrible white racist schmucky things they do would likely be the best possible grounding for that argument.

4. However, “best” does not mean “good,”; it would still not be an acceptable argument for the genocide of white people.

5. Nor would I personally make it.

6. You dim horrible racist fucks.

And if these horrible racist schmucks are still unconvinced after that point, fuck ’em, it’s not my fault their heads are full of misfiring neurons.

With that out of the way:

a) Mallet is out and I will err on the side of Malleting.

b) If you’re planning to make this a Very Serious Thread about genocide, white or otherwise, you’re probably not going to have a good time. Likewise if you demand other people do your Racism 101 for you. May I suggest that the topics for this thread are, one, the eminently mockable concept of white genocide as thought upon by racist schmucks, two, my ineptness at it, three, pointing and laughing at racists. If you try to make it about something else you are probably not going to have a good time, and I will likely mock and/or Mallet you for it.

c) If the thread becomes tiresome early — as it might! — I may just simply close it down because I have other things to do today.

Okay, there you go. Have fun.

I don't know about you, but I can only conclude that he's racist. And a little bit rapey.

92 Comments:

I wonder, when this long period of fantasy ends, if meaningless people whose "celebrity" arises from nothing but their loud mouths will be treated the same way as those who were instrumental in policies that embedded white-hot rage in masses of individuals.

The signs are everywhere; otherwise normal, "vanilla-white" people exhibit evidence of hair-trigger rage operating just beneath the surface.

Today that rage is held in check. I believe it will flood out in ways unprecedented in the Modern Era once this long illusion dispels.

ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOY. ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOY. ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOY.

"ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOY.""ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOY.

ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOYALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOYALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOYALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOYALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOYALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOYALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOYALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JOHN A DULL BOY....

You do appear to live rent free inside this Scalzi guys head. Every time you mention his name in your blog he seems to respond with a rebuttal in less than 8 hours. Its fast becoming a pavlovian response of sorts.

The secret king believes he is great and all evidence to the contrary is simply proof that people don't recognize his greatness. Those people simply don't have the tools to recognize greatness, but he does, because he's great.

He never fails either, because that would mean he's not great. Everything is reinterpreted as a victory. Not in the "learning from my mistakes way" either. More in the "that's what I intended all along but never said so" way.

To minimize the impact the world has in his sense greatness, he builds his ego around the positions he takes. A criticism of his opinion is always taken as a full on assault on his identity. Over time, he drives away anyone who could ever help him improve by pointing out his flaws. He loses the ability to learn from the world around him and becomes very fragile to it, going in endless cycles of rage and smugness.

I'm sick of reading jokes at Scalzi's expense on the internet*. But they have positively done their job . How can he be so blind as to not see how his attitude makes even blanket-asses shout, tourretes-like, the 14 words?

VD wrote:Master, are you like Voldemort? If Scalzi mentions your name you shall appear? At least he called you a raciss so that should give you pause, I expect.

I'm not so easily manipulated. Speak my name and a Vile Faceless Minion appears in my place.

Yours is truly a fell name.

I've been wanting a good place to share this so here goes.

I went to a music festival/ fair thing.

While there I stopped to chat with a couple of authors. Nice gals, making headway in the young Urban Fantasy market

We were talking books and media and such and I intentionally mentioned Castalia House in a favorable light

Whoo boy.

Just as I suspected the publisher who was there , name not relevant and i put it out of my head anyway was a rabbit, mind you not the worst I've seen maybe even salvageable but a rabbit with SJW leanings. Inclusiveness ugh.

As you might guess he was ignorant on the classics, a little childish and also possibly a liar, the later was re: Tingle and his nomination being accepted. He said by Brianna Wu but apparently it was Zoe Quinn

In fairness given this guy almost seemed human this might have been a honest mistake on his part , not a lie . Maybe,

Even so I suspected at the time myself it was a rhetorical rabbit trap re: trans people or something. Knowing that I didn't fall for it.

We got into it for quite a while but being well schooled on his lot I knew what to expect how he'd react and even had a plan in case he complained to the fair authorities.

He didn't. It was a pretty laid back time anyway and being 97.5% White safe and orderly.

In any case just as we all knew SJW's take things personally , you were the subject of this guys entire stock of hate for some reason t Also as always are pretty damned ignorant, always lie and are moral children. This guy seemed to think the Hugo's belong to them and while he vaguely understands the idea of a commons, we had a so-so chat on the idea I don't think he really got it.

Also this guy tended to call you Teddy or Teddy Beale a lot , I guess hoping to demean you. Honestly it sounded like Middle School to me.

Anyway the argument was fun and educational and I got to try out the principles in a low consequence way. Heck he even apologized to me at the end though his "You may have broken Warren Law glare! was hilarious, had I been a rabbit I might have even been scared. A little, maybe.

Anyway IRL, the ideas work. So does maintaining a masculine frame but that's another story

One last thing, it was super nice to see someone exhorting White people to have children to be fertile and the audience, young White and decent looking liking it a lot

I wouldn't be surprised if a baby , people were planning anyway or two came of it

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi 23h23 hours ago@knights_of_west So you're saying that because whites appear to have a dominant gene for being assholes, that makes us superior? Do go on.

There is a self-loathing about the Gamma. This is also an extremely racist statement. And there's the anal/excremental thing again!

Scalzi may not give a fuck but he certainly gives a shit.

Fatherless wrote:He never fails either, because that would mean he's not great. Everything is reinterpreted as a victory. Not in the "learning from my mistakes way" either. More in the "that's what I intended all along but never said so" way.

And, ergo & therefore & like clockwork, he walks it back, CAPITALIZING ALL THE WAY like amateur writers do-

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi 2h2 hours agoYou know what? Just forget it. I didn't even ASK to be put in charge of this white genocide but I MADE AN EFFORT. You all let me DOWN.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi 1hIn case you missed my attempts to administer the white genocide I never even asked to run, the whole saga is here: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/09/08/in-which-i-turn-out-to-be-a-surprisingly-poor-agent-of-white-genocide/

@49-I'm just guessing, because I don't actually know the origin. But I always imagine it as the cliche in fantasy literature, when the lowly shepherd boy turns out to have royal blood, and he's the only one that can lift a sword from a stone, or whatever.

Secret kings act as if it will be revealed one day that they have the natural right to rule.

Therefore, everything they do in the meantime is good and true, somehow. We don't know how; it's a secret. All who oppose them are wrong, somehow. Why don't know how, but we know they are wrong, because secret king.

Once you get past a certain age, the "teen-age" snark is rather pathetic. But I think Scalzi really missed his true calling. America TV used to always have at least one sitcom with a sassy little kid who made snarky remarks to the adults that were Haha hilarious (if you 12 y/o). Scalzi would be the PERFECT Writer for that kid.

Seriously, I read the guy on twitter and his blog and I often wonder "what kind of moron finds him smart or funny?" He just snarks and then writes variations on the snark. I wish the entire Left-wing was as dumb as Scalzi.

You can probably blame his sassy black wife for his recent cuckening. King Solomon was a pretty based guy too at one time, until his 300 foreign wives started nagging to him about how "Assyrian Lives Matter" and all that kind of shit.

tublecane wrote:I'm just guessing, because I don't actually know the origin. But I always imagine it as the cliche in fantasy literature, when the lowly shepherd boy turns out to have royal blood, and he's the only one that can lift a sword from a stone, or whatever.

I believe I can speak with some authority on this subject, having slowly worked my up from omega to delta I think. And the gamma phase is essentially ego as spaceship, no tether or grounding.

At its best, gamma is self-respect and faking it until you make it. But what sets it apart is an alpha-like pride, a sigma-like disregard for social norms, a beta-like irresponsibility, a delta-like competence, and an omega-like social insecurity.

The cure is to bring as much as possible in line with delta norms, because that's a perfectly healthy and achievable trait set. But it takes humility, such as recognizing that the average ordinary everyday delta is so amazing that it's actually a compliment to be compared to one. So gamma is a cognitive-behavioral gravity well, like any other addiction or narcissism.

dc.sunsets wrote:I wonder, when this long period of fantasy ends, if meaningless people whose "celebrity" arises from nothing but their loud mouths will be treated the same way as those who were instrumental in policies that embedded white-hot rage in masses of individuals.

Fareed Zakaria should seriously consider going home. When he exulted over white male suicide, I looked up whether he was on my side of the continent or not. (Not.)

If you mean people even more meaningless than him, probably safe, except for maybe being excluded from local production exchange networks. Depending where they live, if a critical link likes them, they might totally be okay (as unfair as that sounds).

A.B. Prosper wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if a baby , people were planning anyway or two came of it

I'm consistently pro-natal, and I've overheard my regular bartenders warn newbies that there's apparently something in the water. They spend a lot of time pregnant, and while I'm not directly responsible, I think mere endorsement -- "babies are awesome, and so are you, so you should have more" -- has an effect on people.